Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Informal stakeholder meeting_malawi-rashid

269 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Informal stakeholder meeting_malawi-rashid

  1. 1. FOSTERING EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE TRADING SYSTEM (FEATS) PROJECT: MEETING WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS 31 MARCH, 2010 Inclusiveness of Trade Policy Making in Malawi: Presentation of the Main Findings of the First Phase Research By Rashid S. Kaukab Deputy Director and Research Coordinator, CUTS Geneva Resource Centre www.cuts-grc.org
  2. 2. STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Trade policy making process in Malawi: key consultative mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges in participation faced by stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Measuring inclusiveness: the Inclusive Trade Policy Making (ITPM) Index </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions and Recommendations </li></ul>
  3. 3. I. INTRODUCTION <ul><li>FEATS first phase research focus on trade policy making process and role of stakeholders in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia </li></ul><ul><li>Importance of inclusive trade policy making to ensure national multi-stakeholder ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Two publications titled “ Towards More Inclusive Trade Policy Making: Process and Role of Stakeholders in Select African Countries ” (full research publication) and “ Improving Ownership through Inclusive Trade Policy Making Process: Lessons from Africa ” (short advocacy monograph) </li></ul><ul><li>Measuring inclusiveness: Inclusive Trade Policy Making (ITPM) Index </li></ul>
  4. 4. II. TRADE POLICY MAKING PROCESS IN MALAWI: KEY CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS Consultative Mechanism Mandate Composition Malawi National Working Group on Trade Policy National Development and Trade Policy Forum (MNDTPF) National Action Group (NAG)/Public-Private Sector Dialogue (PPD) Inter-Ministerial Committees (IMCs) All trade policy issues EPA negotiations only All issues All issues Multi-stakeholder Multi-stakeholder Only public and private sector Only governmental
  5. 5. II. TRADE POLICY MAKING PROCESS IN MALAWI: KEY CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS Mandate/Membership Multi-stakeholder Public-Private sectors Only governmental Multiple issues including trade Malawi PPD Malawi IMCs All trade issues Malawi NWGTP Specific trade negotiations Malawi NDTPF
  6. 6. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS <ul><li>Ministry of Industry, Trade and Private Sector Development (MITPSD) </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of capacity and technical human resources </li></ul><ul><li>Changes in government that lead to policy changes mid way through implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of financial and human resources to ensure regular functioning of consultative mechanisms </li></ul>
  7. 7. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS <ul><li>Other relevant Government Ministries and Agencies </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of capacity and technical human resources </li></ul><ul><li>Issues of coordination among governmental machinery </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of timely feedback, e.g. from REC Secretariats </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of sense of ownership and opportunity to build trust since foreign consultants are assigned to projects </li></ul>
  8. 8. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS <ul><li>Private Sector Umbrella Organizations </li></ul><ul><li>Limited human and technical resources to understand and effectively lobby on issues </li></ul><ul><li>Need to balance the interests and participation of members </li></ul><ul><li>Need for more organized and sustained lobbying </li></ul>
  9. 9. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS <ul><li>Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) </li></ul><ul><li>Limited technical understanding of complex issues </li></ul><ul><li>Inadequate access to information on trade policy </li></ul><ul><li>Ideological differences between private sector and CSOs on trade regime options </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of resources to maintain sustained engagement and retain the knowledge and expertise gained on trade issues </li></ul><ul><li>External influences on trade policy that align the Malawi government away from CSOs and more toward multilateral institutions </li></ul>
  10. 10. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX <ul><li>IPTM Index: Action Variables, Actors and Values </li></ul><ul><li>Part I: Ministry Responsible for Trade Policy </li></ul>Action Variable Possible Action Value A. Identification of all key stakeholders Yes = 1 No = 0 Most identified = 0.75 Some identified = 0.5 Few identified = 0.25 B. Creating awareness about the need for trade policy Yes = 1 No = 0 Many efforts made = 0.75 Some efforts made = 0.5 Few efforts made = 0.25 C. Establishment of formal consultative mechanisms Yes = 1 No = 0 Established for most trade policy issues = 0.75 Established for some trade policy issues = 0.50 Established for few trade policy issues = 0.25 D. Regular functioning of formal consultative mechanisms Yes = 1 No = 0 Functioning most of the time = 0.75 Irregular functioning = 0.5 Ad hoc functioning = 0.25 E. Regular information flow to the stakeholders including on the content of trade policy Yes = 1 No = 0 Information flowing most of the time = 0.75 Irregular information flow = 0.5 Ad hoc information flow = 0.25
  11. 11. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX <ul><li>IPTM Index: Action Variables, Actors and Values </li></ul><ul><li>Parts II, III, and IV: Other Relevant Government Ministries, Private Sector, and CSOs </li></ul>Action Variables Possible Action Value F, I, and L. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities Yes = 1 No = 0 Most of the time = 0.75 Irregular = 0.5 Little and / or ad hoc = 0.25 G, J, and M. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies Yes = 1 No = 0 Most of the time = 0.75 Occasional faithful representation and/or irregular feedback = 0.5 Little faithful representation and / or ad hoc feedback = 0.25 H, K, and N. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise Yes = 1 No = 0 Substantial knowledge and expertise = 0.75 Some knowledge and expertise = 0.5 Little knowledge and expertise = 0.25
  12. 12. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX <ul><li>Explanation of Possible Action Values </li></ul><ul><li>Yes = maximum value of 1 = when appropriate action has been taken by the actor concerned </li></ul><ul><li>Many/Most = high value of 0.75 = when quite a lot has been done but some gaps remain </li></ul><ul><li>Some = intermediate value of 0.5 = when action has been taken but is not sufficient </li></ul><ul><li>Few / Little = low value of 0.25 = when some action has been taken but much remains </li></ul><ul><li>No = 0 value assigned = when no action has been taken by the actor concerned </li></ul>
  13. 13. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX <ul><li>MITPSD SCORE </li></ul>Action Variable Score A. Identification of all key stakeholders 0.50 (some identified) B. Creating awareness about the need for trade policy 0.50 (some efforts made) C. Establishment of formal consultative mechanisms 1.00 (Yes) D. Regular functioning of formal consultative mechanisms 0.75 (functioning most of the time) E. Regular information flow to the stakeholders including on the content of trade policy 0.50 (irregular information flow) Total MITPSD 3.25/5.00
  14. 14. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX <ul><li>Scores by Other Groups of Stakeholders </li></ul>Action Variables Score by Other Relevant Government Ministries Score by Private Sector Organizations Score by CSOs F, I, and L. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities 0.75 (most of the time) 1.00 (Yes) 0.25 (little and/or ad hoc) G, J, and M. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies 0.50 (occasional faithful representation and/or irregular feedback) 0.75 (most of the time) 0.50 (occasional faithful representation and/or irregular feedback) H, K, and N. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 (some knowledge and expertise) 0.50 (some knowledge and expertise) 0.50 (some knowledge and expertise) Total 1.75/3.00 2.25/3.00 1.25/3.00
  15. 15. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA Part I. Ministry responsible for Trade A. Identification of all key stakeholders 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 B. Creating awareness about the need for trade policy 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.75 C. Establishment of formal consultative mechanisms 0.75 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 D. Functioning of formal consultative mechanisms 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.75 E. Regular information flow to the stakeholders including on the content of trade policy 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.50 Part I Score 3.50/5.00 3.25/5.00 2.50/5.0 2.75/5.00 3.75/5.00
  16. 16. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA Part II. Other relevant government ministries/agencies F. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.75 G. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 H. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Part II Score 2.00/3.00 1.75/3.00 1.50/3.00 1.75/3.0 1.75/3.00 Part III. Private sector and business umbrella organizations I. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 J. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 K. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Part III Score 2.00/3.00 2.25/3.0 2.00/3.00 2.00/3.00 2.00/3.00
  17. 17. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA Part IV. Civil society organizations L. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities 0.75 0.25 0.50 0.25 1.00 M. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 N. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.50 Part IV Score 2.00/3.00 1.25/3.00 1.50/3.00 1.75/3.00 2.00/3.00 ITPM Index Score 9.50/14.0 8.50/14.00 7.50/14.00 8.25/14.00 9.50/14.00
  18. 18. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <ul><li>Several consultative mechanisms on trade issues established; however </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack legal mandates and adequate resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple fora with overlapping membership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Irregular and ad hoc functioning </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Improved stakeholders participation; but </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not all stakeholders being represented </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not all stakeholders have equal opportunities to participate </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <ul><li>Remaining challenges classified in three broad categories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Related to capacity (limited technical, human, and financial capacities of stakeholders) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Related to institutional and structural issues (design and functioning of consultative mechanisms) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Related to challenges internal to each group of stakeholders </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <ul><li>Identification and involvement of remaining stakeholders: action by government and concerned ministries needed </li></ul><ul><li>Regular information flow on trade issues to key stakeholders: action by concerned ministries needed </li></ul><ul><li>Rationalization and strengthening of consultative mechanisms: action by government and concerned ministries needed </li></ul><ul><li>Better coordination among relevant government ministries and agencies on trade issues: action by government needed </li></ul>
  21. 21. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <ul><li>Better opportunities for CSO participation: action by MITPSD needed </li></ul><ul><li>Better feedback and input loops between CSOs and the private sector umbrella organisations on the one hand, and their constituencies on the other: action by private sector umbrella organizations and CSOs needed </li></ul><ul><li>Investment on knowledge and expertise building: action by all including development partners needed </li></ul><ul><li>Promotion of a culture of dialogue and inclusiveness: sustained efforts by all stakeholders needed </li></ul>
  22. 22. <ul><li>Inclusiveness will generate national ownership which is the best guarantee for effective implementation of trade policy as part of overall development policy </li></ul><ul><li>For further information please contact [email_address] or [email_address] </li></ul>

×